dimanche 12 août 2012

At least three cult members also face criminal charges for parental negligence, she said. Twenty children were in the sect, including 12 of pre-school age, and will be kept away from their parents while authorities decide whether to put them into foster care, according to the prosecutor’s office. The children were denied medical care and schooling, Petrova said.

First of all, it is not quite correct to categorise as children everyone under 18. A girl ceases to be whatever "little school girl" is in Russian and becomes a Dyevushka at age 12 according to a Russian grammar from before the Revolution (the word stem Dyeva being rich in diminutives the chapter on diminutives was exemplified by those of Dyeva). Presumably the Czars did not expect boys to wait until eiighteen either before being able to marry. And therein they were quite at one with the Popes of Rome and the Kings of Spain for comparable periods.

But second of all, even with those who are children, once it is assured they will not be kept under ground for another day, once their eyes have got used to daylight, should be returned to any parent not facing criminal charges.

One does not need to be a prophet to realise that state crimes against the natural law, God will not let it go on forever. Either Christian states cease committing the crimes of Communism or they will cease to exist, sooner or later.

According to Pope Leo XIII Christ granted Satan one Century. The one from 1903 to 2003. It is finished. Christ must have the Christian nations back either by conversion of statesmen or by ... Apocalypse ch. XIX. I am not that eager for Harmageddon as not to want states to take the other road and be Christian once again.

Living under ground certainly must have had its bad sides, but being placed in foster homes because one's parents followed a man who was claiming to know what man cannot know, the day and hour of the Day of Judgement, is hardly any better.

In the German Süddeutsche Zeitung I read that one child welfare agent claimed for no children being returned to parents before a long therapy. Being subjected to a long therapy or having one's parents subjected to it, is hardly any better either.

It is against the natural law, against the law which "God has written in the hearts of the Gentiles". It is as much against the natural law as Islamic Slave Hunt and Turkish Janissary Recruitment have been for Centuries.

And that means one need not even be Christian to realise this is wrong.

If any "Orthodox" here cites a certain Romanides as saying that there is no natural law after the sin of the first parents, I say Romanides was not Orthodox, but a Calvinist Heretic, when it came to the "T" of the Calvinist "TULIP", "T" meaning "Total corruption" in the Five Points of the Calvinist Heresy.

And I claim the Calvinist Heresy was not only condemned by Trent and by Roman Catholics, but also by Jerusalem and Iasi and thus by Eastern Orthodox.

There is a natural law, even after the fall, even though without grace it is impossible for a man to completely follow it. But as for officials in a Christian state, they have no excuse for not being in a state of grace. Are there no priests they can confess to? Have they no Liturgy where they can receive Communion?

And thus, if Russia wants to be Christian, it must cease things not only un-Christian but even un-natural, as the Communist God-denyers did between 1917 and 1990.

I do not claim to be a prophet, only to be a man and a Christian. And to realise that the natural law is compulsory just as much for governments as for individuals. It was good to give the children and adolescents back the light of day, even though the men believed they had to stay in a bunker under ground. It would not be good to torment families even because parents tormented their offspring along with themselves.

PS: On some Saturdays I take my breakfast with other homeless at a table of the hospitality of the St Stephen's Church on the Hill of Paris (St Étienne du Mont), and one morning I was complaining about similar illdeeds in Sweden. One Bulgarian asked why I thought Monarchy would make things any better. But I had not spoken of Monarchy that morning. However, one reason why monarchy just might make things better is that it leaves less room for parlamentarians wanting to pose as wellinformed and enlightened to shine with new so called progressive legislation, like the legislations allowing so many states officials to take away so many children or even adolescents from their parents.

All changes introduced at the Council and in the post-Conciliar reforms which we denounce, because the Church has already condemned them, are confirmed. With the difference that, from now on, it is said, at the same time, that the Church does not change…[sic], which means that these changes are perfectly in the line of Catholic Tradition.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf:*

[Hmmm... I wonder what the position of some of the SSPXers is on the thought of Ven. John Henry Newman concerning development of doctrine. I honestly don't know. This might be an interesting point of discussion, below, if it can be civil.] ... [The SSPX wants, it seems, a total repudiation of the Second VAtican Council? Partial? D'ya think that's going to happen? Papa Ratzinger has written that perhaps it would have been better for some Councils in the past never to to have been held. That, however, doesn't mean that we repudiate them entirely. We put them in proper perspective and then move on. But what if your view of the Church and of doctrine doesn't alow for "moving on" or "development". This is why I asked that question, above.]

Now to my five cents:

A) A dogma is a dogma.

B) A valid decision of an Ecumenical Council is dogma.

c) What Councils are Ecumenical and how an Ecumenical Council decides are or have at least long been not dogmas, but "dogmatic facts".

D) Whether these facts are dogmatic or not, there has been divergence about them.

i) Vth Ecumenical Council had a Pope signing a Condemnation of the Three Chapters of Ibas and Bishops Voting a Condemnation of Origenist positions, fourteen of them I think, including Apocastasis ton panton. If vote decides, Origenism is condemned already back then as most people or maybe all of them subsequently thought. If Papal signature decides, then Three Chapters of Ibas were condemned back then, and Origenism was condemned later by people thinking it had already been condemned - if you admit Innocent III and Eugene IV had the powers to make decisions on Councils like Latran IV and Florence.

ij) VIIIth Ecumenical Council of 869 was repudiated by Pope Zacharias who held what some hold to be the real VIIIth Council in 879.

iij) It seems - regrettably so to me - that Benedict XVI has not been faithful to the decisions of Council of Vienne, 1312-1313. Notably as concern Templars.

This much I had written when a black man, possibly or even probably Muslim, sitting next to me in the Library of Georges Pompidou Centre taunted me about my fast and therefore energetic and loud typing. I mean he was typing his comments under a picture as if he were doing a painting, and good luck to him, but it really pisses me off very much to have people interrupting my work in order to comment about my way of doing it. So I forgot what I was going to say. Mind blank.

What John Henry Cardinal Newman stated in Grammar of Assent, I do not know. I have not read it. I do however know that in History of the Arians of the IVth Century, any conciliar condemnations before Nicea condemning "consubstantialis" had been not in Ecumenic Councils, therefore not directly dogma. And he states that those statements were mostly condemning Patripassianism and Modalism, a heresy opposite to Arianism and in some ways even worse. Therefore also condemned earlier. I do also know that when it came to one kind of opposition to it which was clearly a real oppposition, namely Paul of Samosata, an Arius before Arius so to speak, John Henry Newman very clearly called him heterodox. An innovator even if not yet a condemned heretic.

So, I have a problem with anyone seeing as fully Ecumenic Councils both Lateran IV (enjoining a war on heresy, and not just the real baddies, the Albigensian heresy) and Vatican II (calling religious liberty a basic human right).

I have equally a problem with anyone seeing as fully Ecumenic Councils both Florence (enjoining something very close to feeneyism) and Vatican II (which does not directly repudiate feeneyism in so many words, but at least encourages a neglect of it).

But as for anyone saying "an Ecumenical Council cannot be removed from the number of Ecumenical Councils", that is impossible for the Papal theology shared by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople and the latter day Roman Catholics.

A dead Pope can also be repudiated: we know Popes during all the Middle Ages abjured the Heresies of Liberius and Honorius, and we know Pope Formosus was dug up and laicised and tried and burnt and his ashes were thrown into the Tiber.

samedi 11 août 2012

But using a category like "homosexual" - which is about "sexual orientation" - which is about "taste in temptations against chastity" (excepting married men whose sexual orientation is their wife and married women whose sexual orientation is their husband) - and having it stand for a particular sin against both chastity and nature (when Eugene Rose, still in the world, before his conversion, was fooling around with both sexes, was he at least making babies when the sins against chastity were with women or not, I do not know), is so modernist. And making that sin the one that cannot be forgiven even if one repents of it, is so Calvinist.

Frankly, it is one of the things where a little Latin philosophy might help someone out once in a while. Not tearing things apart that absolutely belong together, but refusing to confuse things that are not the same.

Back when I was was Roumanians for two years - and was treated as if I were Hyperdox Herman in person - I wondered if the Penance of Oscar Wilde, late though it came, had merited by intercession the penances of Eugene Seraphim Rose and - unsuccessful as they long were - of the man whom I had a bit earlier called Papa Gregorio XVII de Palmar de Troya.*

I also misremembered a word of Christ - or mingled two of them: the one where Sodom and Gomorrah shall have a better deal on the Day of Judgement than two cities and the one where Prostitutes and Taxcollectors shall enter Heaven before the Jews. I actually thought that the Gay Culture had to start converting before Jews could.

In case anyone wonders, I have not been in love with men, but one of the girls I had crush on was as Lesbian. Is no longer, though her boyfriend is not me. ANOTHER of the girls I had a crush on (back in my Palmarian days) was a Serbian. Wonder if that is why I became Orthodox for a while. If one calls that being Orthodox. Papists do not, since I was not Papist. Photians do not, since I was very Athanasianly filioquist. I used jokingly to call Roman Catholicism as known over centuries "Spanish Orthodox Church" and FSSPX "Swiss Orthodox Church, Patriarchate of Écône".

Anyway, whether Herman wants to be a priest or monk when he has his catechumenate done, or wants to stay a layman, I think his priest might be treating him unfairly by saying he has catechumenitis, sorry, convertitis. If he is seriously worried about whether to be Serbian or Greek or Russian (I was not at first, since I had a stepfather baptised by a Roumanian Uniate, and then I was because I felt myself targeted to convert to either more Photian or more Malthusian positions than I could in good conscience), he might have a problem and "Latin" as in "non-phyletistic Orthodox" alias RC might be the solution, whether he becomes convinced of Papal Supremacy or not. If it comes to spelling with daseia instead of h, I would not like to see that as a statement, I would like to see if 'e can keep that up wiðout looking as if 'e wrote Cockney, ðis 'Yperdox 'Erman - or better still: I'd like if he wrote cockney and spoke it. Greeks no longer pronounce ðe daseia eiðer, so speaking about 'edge'ogs would not be bad. In that line.

My linguistic tip, whether you call that convertitis, hyperdoxy or simply reactionary conservatism: if you learn Russian, use fita and izhitsa for the Greek loans that need them and DO use the yatch and not the ye in contexts like masculine and neuter locative singular or in the stem of Dyeva=Virgin. And do insist that properly speaking a Dyevushka (which is one of the diminutive forms of Dyeva) is between ages 12 and 30. Just like St Mary the Gyshian** had her chance of converting by marriage (not taken, whether the fault was hers or the clients') between her apostasy to a bad life at age 12 and her conversion to anorectic and anachoretic life which was at age 29. God did not want her to fall before she could properly have married and he did not take away her chances of marriage before it was one year before "too late anyway".

It is basically what I do for a language I know much better than Russian: Swedish. In English (except American spelling reform) or even French and German it is less needed, these three basically have their current spelling from the time of Dr Johnson or a little later. But Swedish and Russian went through "language surgery" of a very unnecessary kind (1870's/1906/1950 vs Russian Revolution) very recently, meaning that the older spelling was also used pretty recently, by people speaking a basically identical language, and can therefore be restored. At Constance - yes, I know Hyperdox Herman does not count this as a Council, but this concerns an episode - the Emperor used the form "schismae" and grammarians promptly corrected him that "schisma" being a Greek neuter noun needed a Genetive and Dative that went like "schismatis/schismati". He argued that he was above the Grammarians. They replied he was not above the Grammar. As Emperor Claudius (I) had found out when he had wanted to introduce a half M to denote the nasal vowel in "sum" instead of the m, and a vowel for schwa or ü instead of the i/u in "optimus/optumus". If they were right, that means that the language reforms touching Swedish and Russian were ultra vires of those governments. Not meaning that imposing per compulsion the older spelling would be intra vires, but using it voluntarily is a protest against that proceeding.

But when it comes to concepts that sound modern - like "homosexual" - and maybe are modern, one tip is to avoid them till you find out what they mean, or ask "what is the guy trying to say and how would a real philosopher like Aquinas have stated it"? I had to make such a reflection yesterday since Disney in a war film was misusing as "opposite of reason" the word "emotion" (which includes things quite as much "with reason" like "just indignation" as it includes things "without reason" or "contrary to right reason" like itching for sins against not only chastity but even nature). A blooper Disney could make as a XXth C. man but which a man like St Thomas Aquinas was not likely to make in the XIIIth C.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou Library
of Paris, and day after
St Lawrence of 2012

*He seems to have been the sole sexual predator in Palmar, and his victims were not children or teens as far as I know but monks and nuns acting under what they considered religious obedience. Wonder if the Palmarians today have something particualr to say about "indiscrete obedience" like obedience when one is sometimes not obliged to obey and sometimes even obliged not to obey a superior? Anyway he died in 2003 and his immediate successor Pedro II in 2011. Now they are at Gregorio XVIII.

**In Paris St Mary of Egypt was called l'Égyptienne but later La Jussienne. I wanted to English that as Gypsian but ... I am not sure how much or little she is honoured by Catholic or Orthodox gypsies by the way. Gyshian is a bit closer.

samedi 4 août 2012

In order to answer this question, in their article:
a) they quote one liberation theologer (Gutierrez, a prominent one) as not good and do not ask if there are any others (like as asking if Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Luigi Sturzo were possibly good "liberation theologians" in a broader, non-Gutierran sense),
b) there reason for condemning him is in the end that he shares Karl Marx' definition of the injustice of Capitalism (as if for instance José Antonio had not lauded Karl Marx' analysis of the wrongs of Capitalism, only differring about the proper solution to that wrong),
c) when they - quite rightly - say that only the truth sets free and that one should be faithful to the traditional magisterium, and defiant of novelties, in their own words:

At this time of extreme confusion, let us remain faithful to the faith of our fathers, rather than run after lying novelties,

they still watch out only in one direction, against the left. I have never seen them criticise the modern state for being too interfering in the lives of the poor (unless it be for Malthusian purposes, they are that faithful to the magisterium, thank God) or Capitalism for using illicit methods of gain, unjust to those paying interest on money loans, unjust to consumers paying too much or getting a product of very doubtful health benefits (such as aspartame leading to brain decay or vaccinations leading to autism or neuroleptics used for torture in mental hospitals) or of employees having if not too little pay in the West at least having too many hours and too much interference even before becoming employees.

Even the tools of Marxist tyrannies seem not to inspire their horror when such can be taken from that use and be reused - with little difference - by the Christian right they want to set up.

I also want to see a Christian state. I also want less taxes and among other things less paid (or nothing paid) on tax money for birth control, abortion and a few more. But I also want fewer poor children (or none at all) taken away from their real parents and be given to rich foster homes supposedly more responsible , and that area is one in which I see in the right too little horror at wasting tax money on tyranny. I also want fewer beggars chased away from where they are begging (none at all would be utopic, some places can be overloaded, some beggars can be hard to bear with), and hence a little less paid to police doing that task and a little less paid to security doing that task. And I do not see TFP or their French counterparts writing against these malpractises, wasting tax money and bothering people not having the power of the state. I joined a group for the establishment of the Social Kingdom of Christ in America. The group administrator seems to think or to have thunk that it would be licit to take away children from the Muslim minority and raise them in Catholic schools. "Otherwise" leaving parental authority intact. I can say with pride that he got heat from me and with gladness that he got some heat and no support from other group members on that one.

The Corporative solution says "harmony between the classes", not simply Capitalist domination over Proletarians. It is against class struggle such as the leftist proposition of making a classless society by confiscating all private property and putting it in the hands of "all", but it is equally opposed, at least in the theoretic speeches made by some (like Mussolini, like Perón, like José Antonio) to mere domination of the Capitalist class over the working class, whether rural or industrial. Some advances from politicians close to Capitalist interests are such as would leave workers with, not only on Marxist theory, but first and foremost on the theory of harmony between the classes, with today a right to just defense.

It is being said that such and such a car producer is closing down in Aulnay in order to produce in China. But although the theory of confiscation of private property because of inequality has not found favour with the Church, the theory of protectionism at frontiers in order to protect production within the country from unfair competition from cheaper and indeed underpaid workers abroad has not found disfavour with the Church. Nor has the theory of working collectives using their savings to buy what belonged to employers who already want to sell. If the management of - is it Peugeot? - no longer wants to employ the thousand workers in Aulnay, it can no longer complain if they use their know-how to make a new co-operative workers owned car factory on the site previously owned by Peugeot. That is not as if the Marxists had confiscated and socialised their property, it is a question of buying what Peugeot anyway wants to sell.